similar to: ProxyArp

Hi all, I''m currently using ipsec with Shorewall 3.0.7 on a patched 2.6.10 kernel. Having heard that ipsec support was in the standard kernel starting from 2.6.16, I tried to upgrade to the last kernel. My problem is that shorewall won''t start anymore. I get this output in /var/log/shorewall-init.log: Starting Shorewall... Initializing... Shorewall has detected the

Hi shorewall users, could you please help me with this fw message? May 27 11:19:17 pfw Shorewall:net2all:DROP:IN=eth0 OUT=eth2 SRC=80.178.213.211 DST=81.200.153.71 LEN=152 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=54 ID=256 DF PROTO=ESP SPI=0xdb45daed Where DST=81.200.153.71 is my VPN gateway and SRC=80.178.213.211 is my mobile with public ppp ip. The VPN tunnel is established with udp 500 allowed but if I try

I have some hosts in a DMZ zone with proxyarp. In my local zone I have a host to which I DNAT. I have discovered that I can reach the host in the local zone by attempting to connect to the fw (As expected) or ANY proxyarped host in my dmz zone (as not expected). Is this normal ? (I''ve just discovered that actually the dnated host answers to requests sent to any IP routed to my host!)

Hi, In a routed network setup , is it possible to use ProxyARP given the condition that the shorewall external interface and the DMZ interface are in a completely different network . That means the gateway of the External interface and the hosts in ProxyARPed DMZ zones are in different network. eth0 ---in 220.227.X.Y/30 -- shorewall external interface eth1 ---in 220.227.A.B/27 -- shorewall

Our VPN runs for 3 months very well with a minimum of traffic <100 kbit/s. Only DNS Zones and nagios passive checks were transferred. Everything seems to work. Left side is x.x.x.14 (host 1) Subnet 10.0.0.0/24 openswan 2.4.4 shorewall 2.4.2 & iptables 1.3.4 gentoo 2.6.12-r9 with policy match It´s reachable through a proxyarp entry on x.x.x.11 (host 2) which is another gentoo 2.6.12-r9

I´ve figured out the following. I am able to sftp from shorewall 2.4.2 left vpn gateway x.x.x.14 (DMZ) to shorewall 2.4.1 fw x.x.x.11 with /etc/shorewall/proxyarp x.x.x.14 eth2 eth0 No very well. That´s not through a tunnel (of course a ssh tunnel, but no vpn) but with public ip x.x.x.14 to x.x.x.11 If I try to sftp through the fw to the public internet I have the same

Hi Folks, Can i account proxyarped pc´s ?? Like know how much web traffic passthru a specific person ip using shorewall ? So i can know how much bandwidth that specific IP EAT ? Thanks alot Carlos Arnt ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward

Tom, Is not this query worth answering? -Siva -----Original Message----- From: Sivamurugu K. Pillai Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 3:14 PM To: ''Mailing List for Shorewall Users'' Subject: ProxyARP in a Routed environment Hi, In a routed network setup , is it possible to use ProxyARP given the condition that the shorewall external interface and the DMZ interface are in a

Hello list, I am in the process of switching from IPCOP to Shorewall s the firewall for our small office. I very much like the fact that Shorewall runs on top of the same OS (openSuSE 11.4) that I run on the server and my desktop. Our setup is fairly straightforward. We have 8 static ip addresses from our ISP, which provides a cable modem and a Cisco 800 series router. The ip addresses are

Hi As per my follow up mail I implemented the ProxyArp configuration as per the Documentation on the Web site and all seemed to be working correctly. However, the one thing that doesn''t seem to be working properly is Samba. I have Samba running on the FW machine and one of the servers 192.168.0.8 on the Local Lan. I can connect to a Share using Samba from Server to Server, however

I have been trying to get DNAT to work and I actually have succeeded too, however, not how I thought it would work when reading through the documentation. 1. No matter what I do I cannot get DNAT to work unless I have an entry in eiter the nat or the proxyarp file. Is that really how it''s supposed to be? I can''t find anything about it in the documentation. 2. Also, in the

Would it be considered normal that a system behind a shorewall box that was setup for proxyarp and able to be reached from the trusted side of the net just fine on the proxyapr ip address would if it were to talk out to the world show as traffic not from the proxyarp address but the firewall''s own address or the masquerading ip used by other zones? We had not really noticed this as an

Hello Shorewall gurus, I have a dilemma with a public server. I want to migrate the current public server over to a new machine behind the current server''s firewall (shorewall 1.4). I have included a diagram below to help explain the target network I am working toward. I have read the shorewall online documentation and though I have used Shorewall the past 4 years in the current

My ISP has DHCP-assigned IP-addresses. I wonder if someone has tried using proxyarp for a DMZ with DHCP-assigned public IP?

I''ve got a serious mess of NAT on our firewall/router systems at the corporate office which seems to do nothing other than confuse the heck out of people. What I''d like to do is gradually migrate the hosts on the various DMZ networks away from private IP addresses and NAT over to public IP addresses and proxyarp. What I''m wondering, before I start this, is how do I

Does anyone know what a good maximum number of machines I should place in the ProxyArp list? Thanks Jamie

What speaks for it and which speaks against it that Firewall and squid run on the same machine? Regards Menki ------------------------------------------------------- All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk! Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more

If you have a working proxyARP setup, will you please post it? I''ve tried to insert a Linux box between the DSL connection and the switch, but I''m getting nowhere. Everything works correctly when all the servers in this network use the switch to get to the DSL. Any box directly connected to the DSL also works correctly. http://www.sjdjweis.com/linux/proxyarp/ makes it sound

shorewall-users hi,ALL I have a firewall have three interface, one NIC is internal (eth0), second NIC is SSN(eth2), and other NIC is external(eth1), on internal network have 10.0.1.59 and gw 10.0.1.163 eth0: 192.168.1.254/24 eth1: 10.0.1.55/24 gw 10.0.1.163 I use shorewall''s proxyarp 10.0.1.59 eth1 eth0 no no that is OK. I saw /usr/share/shorewall/firewall, I

Hello all, I have a question in regards to proxyarp and shorewall, I am new to shorewall and I have 5 static IP address from my ISP. My current setup is that I have one system with three network cards, (eth0 = xx.xx.xx.42, eth1 = 192.168.110.41 eth2 = 10.10.10.41), two systems with two network cards, (eth0 = xx.xx.xx.41 and eth1 = 10.10.10.42/44), I want to get rid of the eth1 of the two systems